Mr. Speaker, everything, that is, except the Montreal love-in, except the $20 million in 1995 for the Canadian unity fund, a fund we were told did not exist and had been done away with. Something that did not exist had been done away with. Now we've seen everything.

So $20 million was used during the referendum period, either prior to it or during it, but the Prime Minister says it has been looked into. He should know. If he has all the information, then let him give it to us, in total transparency. We want to know. The Prime Minister knows, so let him tell us.

Mr. Speaker, Justice Grenier investigated this matter of expenses during the referendum, with the full cooperation of the federal government. The leader of the Bloc is referring to the 1995 rally in Montreal. It was attended by Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, Canadians who believe in their country and have the right to believe in their country, despite what the Bloc Québécois thinks.

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister has just said is that they have the right to break the law in the name of Canadian unity. Is that it?

We know that the federal government spent $31 million during the year of the referendum for projects related to Canadian unity. In his inquiry into Option Canada, Justice Grenier found explanations for $11 million, so there is still $20 million as yet without explanation.

While we know that federal funds were used to violate Quebec legislation, no one in this government is capable of telling us what those millions of dollars were used for. Let them tell us, then—

Mr. Speaker, again, we can see that the Bloc Québécois is desperately trying to hang on to some minor issues. The fact is that the Auditor General of Canada investigated the matter. Justice Grenier had the opportunity to call everyone involved. He did so and he concluded that he could not go any further. Everything has been said about this issue. We on this side are being insulted because we defend our country, but we are proud to defend Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have been a member of the Quebec National Assembly and to have acted as its deputy speaker. I am very proud to have been a member of the government of Robert Bourassa, as was also one of my female colleagues here.

I am not going to take any lectures from Bloc Québécois members, and particularly from the member who just put the question and who never sat in the National Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the disgraceful outbursts that we have just witnessed in this House serve neither soldier nor citizen.

Two days ago, a majority of members voted in this House to get things going, to purify the air, to fight climate change, to clean the air and to improve the health of our citizens, and to reintroduce the clean air and climate change bill in this House for debate and for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, the government is showing contempt for this Parliament and, worse, the Prime Minister, by his lack of action, pursuant to the direction of this House, is showing total disrespect for the very principles for which he claimed to stand not too long ago.

On April 13, 2005, after a motion had been adopted in this House, the current Prime Minister said at the time that “the Prime Minister has the moral responsibility to respect the will of the House”.

Will the Prime Minister now accept his moral responsibility and bring forward the legislation this--

Mr. Speaker, harmful greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise year after year in this country. Climate change is having a huge effect on this country.

I believe this government has a moral responsibility to act and we are acting. We are acting in a major way. For the first time in this country we will see an absolute 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, something that we never saw in the last 13 years.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House a number of times, I directed last year that full funeral costs be given to families according to the normal funeral requirements and that if these amounts exceeded the current guidelines that they were to receive compensation, and that is our policy.

General Raymond Henault, the first Canadian in 30 years to chair the NATO Military Committee, appeared before our committee this morning.

Interestingly enough, he stated that Canada's image would not be tarnished if it were to go ahead with a rotation of our troops in Afghanistan in February 2009, that it is not unusual and that NATO understands when countries make this decision. Rotation is in order.

Now that his claims have been debunked, why is the Prime Minister not respecting his own deadline of February 2009? Why not consider the rotation of our troops, which is considered normal by NATO and not as abandonment, as his propaganda implies?